🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Tim Carey (990507.2150)]


>[From Rick Marken (990506.1530)]


>Coercion (control of the behavior of another person; I hope
>that clears it up, Bill) refers to what only _one_ person is
>doing; the person controlling the behavior.

I don't have a problem with talking about one person as a person who may
have intent to coerce. I just don't see that it makes any sense to
categorise an _interaction_ as coercive when both participants in the
interaction wanted the same thing.

>The important thing to understand -- VERY IMPORTANT -- is that
>a controller (like a coercer who is controlling the behavior
>of another person) has _not_ stopped controlling just because
>the disturbance to the controlled variable (the perceived aspect
>of the coercee's behavior that is under control) has gone to zero
>(the kid stops -- or never does -- struggle).


Yep, I think this is an important point and I think I understand it. I don't
think, however, that the point I make above negates this.

Cheers,

Tim